Sitting on the bench and marking – How effective? [Benchmarking in Macedonia]
The European Policy Institute (EPI) published the research on the effectiveness of the European Union benchmarking mechanism in Macedonia, which has been done within the BENCHER project. The research analyzes the effectiveness of EU benchmarks for Macedonia in eight areas from Chapters 23 and 24.
See the comparative analysis for the Western Balkan countries: Reforming from the Bench – Marking Offside [Comparative Analysis].
Introduction in the research
Within the new approach of the EU Enlargement Strategy “fundamentals first”, the focus of the EU integration process of the Western Balkan countries has been on democracy and rule of law. In addition to the principle that Chapters 23 and 24 related to democracy and rule of law are opened first and closed last in accession negotiations, the new approach relies on an extensive system of benchmarking. As defined in official EU documents benchmarks are measurable tools that improve the quality of the negotiations by providing incentives for the candidate countries to undertake necessary reform at an early stage – they are measurable and linked to key elements of the acquis chapters.1 Benchmarks are set for negotiation accessions for chapters of the acquis – opening and closing benchmarks. For Chapters 23 and 24, in addition to opening and closing benchmarks, interim benchmarks are defined.
The benchmarking mechanism has also been applied to countries that are not in the process of accession negotiations. In different forms and under different titles, benchmarking has been applied in Macedonia despite the fact that is not yet negotiating EU accession and benchmarks were set in the visa liberalisation process, Accession partnership, and High level accession dialogue. In effect, benchmarking has become the key mechanism of the EU conditionality policy that should ensure the consistency and credibility of the conditionality policy. What is more important, the benchmarks should provide encouragement for further reform.
This report, part of a regional project, studies the effectiveness of the EU’s benchmarking system on selected policy issues within the Chapters 23 and 24 focusing on the case of Macedonia. The sample was selected following a mapping of benchmarks that are common or similar among the six Western Balkan aspirants for EU membership. This regional analysis represents a first major attempt to critically evaluate the degree to which the objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved in order to further advance in the EU accession process.
Part of the findings and recommendations
One of the main findings is that a benchmarking mechanism as such does not exist in Macedonia even though it can be found under “different names” throughout a palette of documents and reform priorities. A strict, precise document that incorporates deadlines, but also enables valorisation, is lacking. Thus, benchmarks are introduced for Macedonia, but without actually having the benefits that come with accession negotiations.
Many of the interlocutors criticise the vagueness of some benchmarks, which in their opinion creates opportunities for circumventing them, leaving space for broad interpretation as to what they entail and do not capture the substance of changes. Consequently, they are suggesting more specific benchmarking, laying down steps and targets within specific period of time. As to the content of the benchmarks and the level of specificity, we can argue that further specification of the benchmarks as to concrete steps that should be taken would be problematic. It would further nurture the culture of expecting and accepting “ready-made” solutions from “foreigners”, further contributing to the erosion of domestic capacity to conceptualise and implement reform. Therefore, benchmarks should essentially relate to the objectives to be achieved, rather than to how they should be achieved. They should clearly refer to basic democracy norms and international standards as key benchmarks for EU accession, while avoiding the traps of over-technicisation.
Once the national authorities determine the actions, their implementation should be objectively measured as to the objectives they achieved, not whether the single actions were realised.
For more, see the research: [Benchmarking in Macedonia] Sitting on the bench and marking – How effective?
—
The project BENCHER is coordinated by EPI and implemented by the Think for Europe Network (TEN). The project is financed by the European Fund for the Balkans.
